On Wed, Dec 07, 2016 at 09:56:11AM -0500, John R Levine wrote: > I was thinking that you're the RDAP server for .FOO and someone who's > screwed up his bootstrap asks about BLAH.BAR, with whom you have no > connection.
I will just point out that this is the _exact_ reason some of us thought the bootstrap mechanism should have been SRV records in the DNS, because it would have neatly solved that exact problem. > I suppose we could pick another code for "it's not assigned but if you pay > me money it could be" but I really don't think it's a good idea to read > anything beyond "I don't know" into a normal 404 response. I agree with this in principle, but given the way humans actually use the RDDS, there's going to need to be _some_ way to communicate this difference. In particular, for policy reasons it's important to understand "this domain isn't available because someone has it", "this domain isn't available because someone has something that prevents it being registered", and "this domain isn't available to anyone for policy reasons." Consider people doing compliance checks, who maybe shouldn't have access to the SRS directly and who should only have access to the RDDS. They still need to be able to see these distinctions. A -- Andrew Sullivan [email protected] _______________________________________________ regext mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/regext
